add_arc

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose preconditions (e.g., must have an active sketch), side effects, or error conditions. The description only states basic functionality without behavioral nuance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief with two sentences. The first sentence states the action, the second adds context. It is appropriately sized but includes some generic text ('essential for...') that is not strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description mentions adding to the current sketch but omits important context such as the need for an active sketch, or what happens if no sketch exists. With an output schema present (as indicated), return values are not needed, but preconditions are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters fully described. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond restating that the arc is defined by center, start, and end points, which aligns with the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'add' and the resource 'arc to the current sketch', and defines the arc by center, start, and end points. It differentiates from siblings like add_line, add_circle, add_rectangle, and add_spline by specifying it creates circular arcs for curved profiles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for rounded corners and curved transitions but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like add_fillet or add_spline. No exclusion or when-not guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.